BEFORE YOU VOTE...

Imagine this. Bill Clinton has been re-elected in a landslide. After
capturing 52% of the popular vote and nearly 400 electoral votes, he
is the first Democratic President since FDR to win the high honor of a
second term in the White House. Moreover, Democrats have gained
twenty-five seats in the House of Representatives to restore their
pre-1994 majority.

On the day of his second Inaugural, Clinton's approval stands at well
above 60%. The economy appears fairly strong, despite indications of
its weakening in the fourth quarter of 1996.

Clinton's first major action is to appoint his wife, Hillary Rodham
Clinton, to head a commission to examine the welfare reform bill
passed by Congress last year. Clinton's aim is to soften it. Given the
new, friendly Congress, reforming welfare reform should be a snap.

But the Clinton team is also faced with unexpected challenges in the
first days of this new Administration. In early February, the
Congressional Budget Office comes out with a rather pessimistic
economic outlook, thus making the holy grail of a balanced budget in
2002 difficult to realize. Clinton is genuinely alarmed by the new
findings given the fact that he told the American people during the
'96 campaign that the economy was much stronger than it actually
was. After meeting with advisers for two days on end, he is convinced
that his economic and budgetary goals will need to be re-evaluated.

The first thing he does is dispatch pollster Stanley Greenberg out to
do focus groups on what would be acceptable to the public in a new
economic package. In a secret Oval Office meeting with Democratic
Congressional leaders a few days later, Greenberg reports his
findings. First, there isn't any great expectation of a tax
cut. Voters had dismissed Bob Dole's idea for a 15% tax cut during the
election season, so Clinton should not be afraid to rescind his pledge
to cut middle income taxes and provide tax credits for
education. Moreover, after voters are told about the programs that
will need to be cut to achieve a new balanced budget under the new
projections, their support for it cools to near freezing levels.

At this point, House Speaker Dick Gephardt suggests that a balanced
budget is "unmanageable" and would best be "postponed" until some
later date. Majority Leader David Bonior and Senate Minority Leader
Tom Daschle agree wholeheartedly. If they are going to restore the
spending reductions Republicans made during their term as they
planned, there would be no realistic opportunity to balance the budget
without seriously affecting the size and scope of the Federal
government.  Clinton's response to this proposal is noncommittal at
the end of the meeting, but he agrees to it a few days later.

The President releases his unbalanced budget to a great sea of
criticism from Republican, and even some Democratic leaders. Blue Dog
Democrats threaten to defect and endorse the Gingrich-Lott balanced
budget.  Throughout the spring, they pressure the President and he
makes vague committals. But Gephardt and Bonior are intransigent. They
would see government reduced only over their dead bodies. They had won
the election, after all. They had every right to overturn the actions
of the 104th Congress because the voters had repudiated it at the
polls on November 5. One of these actions was passing the first
balanced budget in a generation.

Nonetheless, there is a growing feeling among Democrats on the Hill
feel they are getting little support from their President. He seems to
be asleep at the helm.

There is a good reason for this. The President and his closest aides
are not primarily concerned with the budget or solving the problems of
the nation. Increasingly, they have to deal with stemming the growing
tide of ethical allegations.

Riding a honeymoon after his re-election, Clinton pardoned James and
Susan MacDougal and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker for their
involvement in the Whitewater scandal-with little fanfare. But in the
spring and summer, talk of pardons once again surfaces as talk of a
possible indictment against the First Lady is renewed.
 
Late in November 1996, shortly after the President's landslide
re-election, the Supreme Court ruled that he could stand trial in his
term for the sexual harassment charges brought by Paula Jones. In the
8-1 majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist writes, "The
President is not above the law." In July, Clinton attorney Robert
Bennett announces that no settlement could be reached with Jones. The
President is going to court.

For a time, the trial seems to be the only good news Clinton has had
in months. The plaintiff's attorneys have not conclusively shown
misconduct on his part. The President's attorneys are convinced no
jury would find against him even if his approval rating was
floundering in the thirties.

But early in 1998, the trial turns against Clinton. When he is
compelled to testify in person, an event which is covered nearly to
the extent of the famed O.J. Simpson trial of 1995, he gives
wishy-washy and contradictory answers. Later he contradicts the
testimony of his former Chief of Staff. Jones' lawyers have found an
opening. Soon enough, three more women came out with similar
allegations. Bill Clinton's defense is collapsing.

In February, the day before the President is to lay before Congress a
recessionary tax increase in his FY 1999 budget second only to his
1993 tax hike, the jury finds against Clinton and awards Jones
$350,000. Now, it seems, Bill Clinton's presidency is collapsing.

The President's approval rating drops below 30% after the verdict. And
in a sudden turnaround in the gender gap, a poll finds that women say
they would be more likely than men to vote for a Republican
Congressional candidate in the midterm elections. Clinton's woes are
also having serious repercussions for the electoral prospects of Vice
President Al Gore, who has serious thoughts of resigning his post to
save himself from the impending collapse of the Clinton-Gore
Administration. However, he is dissuaded from this action by friends
who note that if Clinton resigns or is impeached, Gore would inherit
the presidency if only for a short time before the 2000 elections.

This impeachment becomes more than an impossibility. Already, a
special prosecutor is looking into illegal fundraising by Clinton and
the Democratic Party and finds that the "Indonesian Connection"
uncovered late in the 1996 campaign was only the tip of the
iceberg. Indictments are handed down in the Filegate investigation and
only weeks after the Clinton verdict, Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr
indicts First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The day after, Clinton
fires Starr.

The nation is in the throes of an economic recession. The deficit has
more than doubled since the '96 elections. Moreover, Medicare is
forecasted to go bankrupt in three years. And there is no leadership
from the White House because nearly two thirds of the President's time
is spent dealing with the scandals. It becomes increasingly clear that
the nation is in the midst of another Watergate. The voters are
furious.

But just imagine you had it to do over again. Just imagine you could,
just this once, go back and cast that crucial vote again. Would you
re-elect Bill Clinton just like you did on November 5, 1996? Would you
give him a second chance and a blank check? Would you ignore all the
ethical questions and cast your vote for this man? That choice is
yours.

Now just go and vote.